. breaking news. republicans taking a another step tonight towards impeaching homeland security alejandro mayorkas. our manu raju reporting house leaders have officially scheduled the impeachment vote for next week. it will be either tuesday or wednesday they say. something that's not been done in 148 years in the united states. and it's still not clear if republicans have the votes. house speaker mike johnson can only afford to lose three. retiring congressman ken buck has already said on "out front" he is leaning no. thank you for joining us. ac 360 begins right now. good evening. jim sciutto here sitting in for anderson tonight. tonight we are getting in the

first images of u.s. strikes on syria and iraq. this is from alkhine in the western province. that orange fireball in the distance appears to be a weapons depot, one of some 85 iranian-linked targets attacked by a variety of u.s. aircraft including long-range b1 bombers like this one which flew nonstop with aerial refueling from here in the u.s. president biden says that today's strike is only the first part of a larger operation being carried out in response to sunday's drone attack on american troops in eastern jordan, which you'll remember killed three soldiers, wounded dozens more. caskets burying those three, the remains of those three returned home today. the president also signaled the united states will not strike

targets inside iranian territory and does not seek a wider conflict in the region in what is already one at war. reporting for us tonight from all across the map m.j. lee at the white house, natasha bertrand, ben we hadman in jordan. let's begin, though, at the pentagon with natasha bertrand. tell us what the pentagon is saying tonight about which targets were struck, what kind and over what period of time? >> we're told by defense officials the strikes took place around 4:00 p.m. eastern time today. they targeted seven different facilities used by iran-backed groups in syria and iraq. there were four facilities struck in syria and three in iraq. and these were 85 targets at these seven locations. and according to u.s. central command they did include command and control operation centers, intelligence centers, rockets, missiles, drone storage facilities, logistics and supply chain facilities. of these iran-backed groups as

well as iranian revolutionary -- islamic revolutionary guard corp themselves, the military wing, of course, of iran. this is a very significant response. we've not seen before at least in recent months the u.s. strike iraq and syria at the same time. but this is clearly meant to show or send a very serious message to the iranians and their proxy militias that these attacks on u.s. and coalition forces will not be tolerated. now, we also got some information about what potential casualties may have resulted from this operation. a u.s. military official, the director of the joint chiefs of staff here at the pentagon, he said earlier today in a briefing that the -- the military does expect there to be casualties because the facilities that they struck are known to have irgc, iranian revolutionary guard corp as well as proxy militia groups operating inside of them, so they struck these targets knowing there were personnel inside and likely knowing there

are going to be casualties. it's going to take a bit of time to get a full battle damage assessment. likely in the coming days we'll know a little bit better about just how well the u.s. hit its targets and if they actually degraded these capabilities to a large degree. >> and of course open question as to whether some of the officers were able to leave there in advance on the presumption they might be targets of u.s. strikes. we've been told for some time that these strikes would not be a one-off, that they would take place over a period of time. do we know what that rough time frame might be? at least it's clear it doesn't end tonight. >> it does not. and secretary of defense lloyd austin he made very clear in his statement saying, quote, this is the start of our response. the president has directed additional actions to hold the irgc and affiliated militias accountable for their attacks. we heard from the national security spokesperson, john kirby, a little bit earlier and he said we do expect additional actions to come in the coming days. what that will look like, of course, it remains to be seen.

jim? >> natasha bertrand at the pentagon, thank you so much. cnn's m.j. lee at the white house tonight with the latest. m.j., has the white house explained the timing of tonight's strikes? it's been a number of days since those u.s. service members were killed going back to last weekend. why did they strike tonight? >> well, we are told by u.s. officials that they've known for some time that the first strikes would begin tonight, and we're told that weather was actually a big, significant factor into why the strikes began tonight. they wanted to make sure that they could avoid any unnecessary casualties. though, as natasha mentioned, there are expected to be some. and they wanted to avoid if possible cloud cover. in other words, they wanted to choose a night, a time when there was better weather to have a better chance of successfully targeting these places, these seven facilities spread out in iraq and syria. clearly, jim, there was also just a lot of different sort of laying of the groundwork leading into tonight. the choice of these seven

facilities in particular, the decision to use these b1 bombers, which flew -- we were told -- directly nonstop from the u.s. to iraq and syria for these strikes and then just informing the iraicy government in advance these strikes were coming. just one note that's important about the timing question, we are told there was no sort of orchestration by the u.s. to make sure these strikes took place just hours after that dignified transfer of the three americans we saw earlier this afternoon, that those two things were completely separate in terms of timing. they were, of course, completely linked in terms of the u.s.' response and why they decided to respond. that had everything to do with the fact thathat three americans had been killed last weekend. >> now, the administration was speaking quite publicly about some u.s. military response. the president himself said that a number of days ago. of course they didn't say exactly when or exactly where, but has there been any indication from the white house about what comes next?

>> i mean the short answer is, no, they're not indicating when the next strikes might be, where exactly they will be and what form. but we do know that there are more strikes coming. one senior administration official, though, making clear where there won't be strikes, and that is inside iran, that all of the targeting is going to be at least for now outside of iran. and, jim, you know this very well, that is not really surprising given to what extent the u.s. has gone in recent days in saying striking inside iran is starting a war with iran, and that is something that the u.s. doesn't want. but it is notable, of course, the president in his statement saying very clearly that this is just the beginning. he said our response began tonight, but there will be more coming at a time of our choosing and a manner of our choosing. so, again, just very much an emphasis here on the fact that there are going to be more strikes coming. but, again, not giving any sort of detailed information of what

exactly that will look like. i think so much of that will obviously depend on this full assessment that the u.s. military is going to do now on how successful they were tonight in the strikes in degrading some of these capabilities. >> and we should note successive administrations of both parties have decided or certainly not taking military action inside iran. so that would not be outside the normal. m.j. lee, at the white house thanks so mup. let's go to the region now. cnn's jeremy diamond he's in tel aviv in jordan, and ben we hadman in london, and christiane amanpour. christiane, as you look at these and there was a fair amount of telegraphing of these strikes in advanish, what do you expect the impact to be? you could argue that these groups had some forewarning here and perhaps had the opportunity to minimize potential damage. is this deterrent against iran and its proxies? >> well, look, the messaging is

very clear and the impact appears to be pretty big. that's 85 strikes, 85 targets. and certainly the iranians and the americans don't want to go to full war. they're going to see there's going to be rolling, you know, strikes and other action we understand over a period of time. and we'll see what happens. i mean it's unlikely iran will retaliate through retaliation. let's see what will happen. and whether it will deter the houthis inside yemen and what they're doing in the red sea, but also this takes part in the big context of current apparent negotiations which are not yet conclusive for the release of hostages, the prisoner swap between hamas and israel and some kind of bigger political solution to this. and of course that is what's going to affect the end result and whether iran can -- will decide eventually to call off

its proxies all around israel. >> no question. so many fronts and potential fronts in this conflict already. ben wedemen, has there been regional reaction tonight? i think we can safely say it's already a region on edge, concerned about the possibility of expansion of conflicts we're already seeing underway, even low grade ones for instance on the border, the northern border in israel in lebanon. what's the reaction tonight? >> jim, so far the iraqis have come out and said the attacks are unacceptable, they're a violation of iraqi sovereignty. we've heard that kind of statement before from the iraqis who nonetheless are hosting u.s. forces on their soil. but generally, i think we can fairly assume that the u.s. supported autocracies in the middle east, there's no love lost between them and iran. and perhaps quietly they may be

applauding the u.s. strikes even though they may not come out and condemn them. on the other hand, on the popular level i think we need to keep in mind what's going on. this war in gaza has been going on for almost four months. the death toll is tens of thousands. the destruction, everybody watches it here every day, and many people who in the past perhaps had a negative opinion of the houthis, of iran, of the iranian affiliated militias, of hezbollah, have in a sense had a change of heart because they see these groups are trying to hit the americans, trying to hit the israelis, trying in some way to affect the ongoing war in gaza. and therefore on the street i don't think you're going to have much in the way of praise for this. and it really just does raise

the level of tension to an extent that -- i mean, most people had already assumed there's actually a low intensity regional war going on across the middle east between the united states and israel on one hand and iran and its allies on another. now we've gone to another level. it is well-beyond a low intensity. the worry is, of course, that one side or the other is going to misstep, and then you could really find the situation far worse than it is at the moment. and it's already pretty bad. jim? >> no question. multiple places where there is potential escalation, and that a major concern. jeremy, speaking of which, you have in effect, multiple fronts for israel. the ongoing high intensity war in israel, and arguably a low to medium intensity war on the northern front between israeli forces and hezbollah, so i wonder how these strikes are being met there.

because, of course, i imagine there's israeli support for striking back at iranian proxies in the region. >> well, look, israel has many times before struck irangen and iranian proxy forces inside of syria. in fact, just earlier today there was a report in iranian state media an irgc advisor was killed in syria by an israeli strike. the israelis will no doubt be happy to see american allies striking iranian forces and their proxies inside of iraq and syria. but it certainly doesn't lower the temperature in a region that has really felt at times like it could really explode beyond what we are already seeing right now, which ben so succinctly described. israel is surrounded by iranian proxies, not only hamas in gaza, hezbollah to the northern in lebanon, but there are those proxies in iraq and syria. in fact, that proxy group, the islamic resistance in iraq, has actually claimed responsibility

for several smaller scale attacks on israel itself. and so while these strikes are certainly intended to try and re-establish u.s. deterrence, to try and deter those proxy forces from attacking u.s. forces further, a big question mark as to whether or not that was achieved, it certainly doesn't necessarily do anything to deter those forces from attacking israel further. and so does israel become more of a target, that could also be a question here, but, also of course what will the actual impact of these strikes be? will it actually reduce the capabilities of some of these groups which not only want to attack the united states but also at times want to attack israel? >> listen, always strikes me you could see the firing positions across the border into southern lebanon and israel. you can see them and the fire often comes. christiane, i wonder more broadly does iran believe in some degree it's winning here. its proxies continue to severely impact red sea shipping. they continue to put u.s. forces in the region at risk, and they

are certainly occupying a large number of israeli forces in northern israel on the israel-lebanon border. that seems altogether to be achieving some of iran's aims. >> you know, to perhaps put it another way i think maybe it thinks that israel's losing. sees that, you know, in the four months of this war there's still rocket fire from hamas, from gaza. there's catastrophic death toll which is inflaming not only the iran streets but other parts of the arab and muslim world. and it sees actually the big targets that israel named to go after are still at large. and i think reporting shows that israel has started again to move its counter offensive towards rafah. so it keeps going and we're not sure what's going to happen in the next phase or where these

negotiations are going to land. but i think the houthis are really showing up and really winning or flooding the information space. they are doing an amazing job in that region as ben said of -- of showing they are not afraid to take on the united states, take on, you know, the shipping in that whole region. and that's a big problem. and, of course, remember the houthis were unable to be stopped by years of saudi and uae war backed by the united states. these are not easy things to quell. it will take a political solution. and it's very unlikely that any military escalation is going to make any of this any better in any part of where we see the middle east. and most importantly as we mentioned briefly by some observers, with the united states gridlocked in terms of defending the major existential battle for democracy, which is

in ukraine, which they're not sending anymore arms to, guess who's watching? iran is watching, obviously russia is watching, but any of the bad actors who, you know, are watching where the americans are and where they're putting their efforts are also watching what happens in the russia-ukraine war. >> china as regards taiwan as well. ben, you mention that conflict, that conflict between the streets and the palaces, if you want to say it that way. perhaps some in the palaces are cheering this military action, but they know their public do not. how does that manifest itself going forward here? because to continue such strikes i imagine the u.s. does not want to yet again alienate its arab partners as it has to a large degree its almost unconditional support for israel as regards

gaza. >> well, i think it's the u.s.' allies and partners in the middle east are in a very difficult position because everybody knows the u.s. has troops in jordan, has troops in syria, has troops in iraq, has troops in the persian gulf. and therefore, there's a tacit acceptance of u.s. policy when it comes to its unwavering support for israel. at the same time, you know, on the street, the united states has really lost a lot of credibility if it had much even before this war when it comes to its policy towards israel, providing weapons, providing diplomatic support, and therefore as i said before, there's a certain amount of -- i mean as christiane mentioned, the houthis, for instance, they are seen as preventing even something worse happening in gaza by directly impacting the

israelis. the militias in syria and iraq are a little bit different because they are identified very closely with iran, which isn't necessarily popular in the middle east. but when it comes to sort of stopping or preventing u.s. policies from succeeding in the middle east, certainly the iranians have been more successful than all of the arab regimes in the region, which speak out of both sides of their mouth. they condemn on the one hand, and thain they silently assessment it on the other. >> and all under the banner of resistance, right? iranian leaders have even labeled it that at this point, axis of resistance. ben, jeremy diamond, christiane amanpour, thanks so much to all of you. joining us now retired army four-star general and nato supreme allied commander wesley clark. also peter monsour, and at the

magic wall major general spider marks. general, if we can begin with you just to give us a sense of the scope here, when you look at this range of targets inside iraq and syria, of course a decision like successive u.s. presidents not to strike inside iranian territory, what do they prioritize here? >> jeremy, you talking to me or general clark? >> talking to you. sorry to you, general marks. >> got it, i'm on it. the prioritization clearly is what's known as the shia crescent, which essentially runs like this. and so the attacks that have just taken place or are along that which you just described as the axis of resistance, which is like right in here. we do not know specifically what the targets sets look like now. we will over the course of time be told what that looks like. but this is where we're attacking. and what's important to understand is that the united

states clearly does not want to expand a war into iran. there's no desire on the part of this administration to do that. and bear in mind, iran has robust infrastructure, the irgc, the quds force are incredibly robust. and the things the iranians like to do is export their terror and to get their proxies to do all the heavy lifting and to do all the dirty laundry. iran and specifically the leadership of tehran do not want to do that, therefore the united states is going after very robustly and i think it's about time along this axis of resistance. >> so general marks, they flew b1 bombers used in this attack all the way from the continental u.s., refueling along the way. why that particular weapons platform? and i wonder if you think there is a message here, a broader one to iran about u.s. capabilities in the event of something larger to strike iranian nuclear

facilities, something of a messaging game here. >> well, clearly there's always a message in terms of how you apply force. there's going to be a continual linkage between what's happening on the ground and what your desired outcomes are -- what your intended outcomes you want them to be. in the case of the b1 what you have is a capability that has you can refuel it, and the united states flew this capacity, this capability from the united states, which gave the united states a tremendous sense of security and surprise when they initiated the attack. it also is heavily armed, 24 cruise missiles to include some gravity munitions, some gravity bombs that exist as well. so this -- and this aircraft, this capability has got about 40 years worth of experience on it, and has legs out to another 10 or 15 years. so this provides a great capability. and it demonstrates that they

can penetrate into this part of the world. the problem with going into iran specifically is iran has tremendous air defendants capabilities, this would not be a platform they would want to use against that. but this was a great platform to be used in this particular instance. >> yeah, cold war weapons put into use today. jenren marks, everyone, please do stay with us. i want to bring in the rest of the panel to dig deeper on all this when our breaking news coverage continues. we'll be right back.

some new reporting tonight from cnn's manu raju on who knew in advance of tonight's strikes on iran-linked targets in both iraq and syria. his sources tell him the administration did notify senate majority leader schumer and other top lawmakers ahead of the operation. that is normal, follows protocol. let's continue the conversation now with wesley clark, peter monsour and general marks. you and have have been talking a long time about u.s. policy in the region and the attack that killed three u.s. service members. when you look at the strikes tonight and they say there'll be more to come, sufficient? >> we'll just have to see, john. it's about what i would have expected from the administration. they've got multiple targets. they're in two countries. they've brought long-range aviation assets to bear. they've got 85 aim points of the

bombs, sounds good. some of the individuals who might have been hit have probably evacuated. they hit at least one ammunitions storage site that you can see on the screen. a lot of it depends on the follow-up. what we hear they're saying, what we see happening on the ground and whether there's any response from these groups. >> colonel monsour, to general clark's point they would have publicly known about it, presumably moved personnel and equipment over the last several days. do you believe they would have been able to do so to effect -- when you look at the picture on your screen now, clearly ammunition was hitted based on those explosions, secondary explosions. but would they have been able to minimize damage in advance by taking moves in advance? >> a lot easier to move your personnel than to move a lot of

ammunition. i'm sure that a lot of the more high value items were hidden and taken away from storage sites, but some of it had to remain simply because there wasn't enough time to cart it away. but the people were obviously in hiding, and so the administration has telegraphed its punction in that regard. it's certainly not deterred them. >> general marks, just as we're watching this video again and you see those explosions coming, would that have been in effect ammunition going off, right? or is that possibly air defense missiles going up? what's your best read of that? >> it appears this is ammunition secondary explosions as indicated. >> okay, understood. all right, so as you're looking, if you were commander of forces in that region and you have commanded forces in that region,

and you had an adversary publicly discussing operations in advance saying we're going to strike and we're going to strike hard, and you know how they've struck in the past, the u.s. has struck iran-backed militias in syria and iraq prior, what would you have done in advance? >> first of all, i'd say thank you for the heads up, and secondarily as described i'd get key personnel into safety, move them as far away as i could into locations where they haven't been before. in other words, it would have to be a new target. and if i had the capacity and i had the time i'd remove kit that i thought was necessary so i can continue to maintain capability. >> understood. general clark, when you look at the broader effects of u.s. deterrence in the region in terms of not just attacks on u.s. forces in iraq and syria but also houthi attacks on shipping in the red sea, also hezbollah, attacks on northern

israel, what is the state of u.s. deterrence in terms of keeping this conflict from expanding further or, in fact, putting a lid on some of these things we've been seeing? >> well, it's not clear we're doing enough to put a lid on it, jim. you've got to go after assets that iran values. i think iran will fast to the last militiaman, recruits will go out there and do stupid things and get killed. they've got a pretty robust military industry that can put more equipment, more ammunition there. this is more of the same from the administration, little bit heavier. it's not exactly tit for tat, but it's certainly not a sort of this is it, no more, enough is enough. it's just not that. >> yeah, not a strategic putting the foot down, as it were. colonel, defense secretary lloyd austin did say in a statement that these strikes today are, quote, the start of our

response, end quote. can the u.s. over time deliver what it may not have delivered in one strike tonight? in other words, through repeated sustained attacks not just take out capabilities and degrade capabilities but also deter further attacks going forward? >> well, it will have to be done overtime. that's the only way you can track the personnel, key personnel, and especially tracking irgc, iranian revolutionary guard corp quds force operatives. the two times i recall we have deterred iran, in both times we captured or killed iran operatives. the first one was during the surge in 2007, 2008 when we captured several of their operatives and the second time is when we killed qusem

sole soleimani >> we'll continue to watch possible events over the weekend. thanks so much to all three of you. and still to come this hour, the dignified return of the three u.s. service members whose killing prompted tonight's ongoing retaliatory strikes, and a conversation with former defense secretary mark esper.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall

is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us.

but if they were not timed to follow, three u.s. soldiers killed in jordan just a few days

ago, their remains returning home. the president, first lady, defense secretary, and others of course including their families attended the dignified transfer. joining us now is mark esper, who served as defense secretary in the trump administration. he now serves, we should mention, on the board or strategic advisor for a handful of aerospace and defense related companies. secretary esper, thanks so much for joining us tonight. >> thank you, jim. good to be with you. >> first, if i could ask you i was covering the dignified transfer as it was happening, and in those moments i always think of the families and what a moment it is f tell us what a moment is like -- like this is for officials like yourself. you served as defense secretary, and we see lloyd austin there. what is a moment like this to witness those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country? >> yeah, you know i attended too many of those as secretary of the army with soldiers, brave heroes coming back from afghanistan at the time. and it's -- it's really difficult, really difficult. it's a very solemn ceremony. the heroes coming home are treated with such solemenity and care. you meet the families beforehand and they're shocked. they don't know how to react, process it in different ways. in many cases what brings it hard home is you've got young kids, children left behind completely unaware of what's going on. they're playing in one part of the room while the mom, the service member's wife or spouse is mourning the lost hero.

so it's really tough. it's tough not just on the family of the fallen, but it's tough on their teammates, on the fellow soldiers on the command, too. it really comes home. so you hate to see these. i think the fewer the dignified transfers we have the better, but it is great to honor our heroes when they come home to rest. >> no question. and of course a reminder to the public american service members are still deployed and risking their lives. this, of course, took place on the same day as these strikes. we're told by the white house that of course was not deliberate. when you look at these strikes, we know the pentagon would likely have offered the president a range of military options. where do you think tonight's strikes would have fallen in that spectrum from the more conservative end of the spectrum to the more aggressive, where do you think it would have landed? >> first of all, it would operate a range of operations, which i typically did. each option would address what we think the casualty count would be, how much it would

degrade their capabilities, the risks to u.s. troops, for example. but also there's the art to it as well determining the input of all involved what might be the reaction of the iranians and what they might respond with. so you present a range of operations from from a very light touch to the heavy part which often involve attacks inside iran. i think they came down about in the middle, which is where i would recommend they start, which is strike iranian forces and assets outside of iran. and then depending on the battle damage assessment and how iran and its proxies respond in the coming days, you would move to the right, you would keep ratcheting it up to include attacks, for example, on iranian naval vessel or oil platforms from inside the country until iran stops its behavior, until it stops its attacks on u.s. forces and bases. >> you know better than me when you present the president with those options you make your

assessment what a likely iranian response would be. and to your point multiple successive presidents have made the calculation you can strike-outicide iran, even president trump inside iran a bridge too far. we don't know how many personnel quds force fighters were killed in these strikes. what would be the menu of potential retaliatory strikes from iran the u.s. would at least be preparing for? >> first of all, you're spot on. we won't know exactly what the battle damage assessment is. we won't know until the morning. we'll be able to see the damage on the ground. your photos show some results of the attacks tonight, secondary explosions. what we don't know is did we kill the people we wanted to kill, the irgc quds force commanders that were probably there. of course iran had a few days not just to move its people but move equipment as well. i would hope we would pursue those things and continue the

campaign beyond just a day or two. of course the pentagon and the white house have said as much. with regard to iranian responses, look, it could be, of course, localized attacks again against united states bases through their proxies. it could be missile attacks as we saw in my tenure in 2020. i think that's less likely, but you don't know. you have to be prepared under all that. i think that might also explain why there was some delay. you want to give your forces in the region particularly in partner states like the uae, qatar, and saudi arabia, the chance to prepare and defend themselves, maybe relocate our own assets as well. >> it's a great point. it's not just preparation for the other side, giving them time but give your own people time to prioritize force protection. before we go, decisions to use military force are, of course, some of the most difficult for sitting presidents. and this of course taking place in an election year. a major test for this president?

>> absolutely a major test. look, i think you'll look at some milestones in the president's foreign policy. one would be the withdrawal from afghanistan, which was force resolved in a dozen or so americans, the russian invasion of ukraine would be another. october 17th the invasion -- i'm sorry, the brutal attack by hamas on israel, and now another step, another milestone in u.s.-iranian relations. and, look, depending on what happens tonight and in the coming days, iran responds, how the president responds, again, this is also going to have a political impact here back home with an election less than ten months away. meme are going to look at this and make another judgment, another assessment about president biden at a time when he's getting a lot of heat from americans with regards to the economy, a lot of dissatisfaction how he's handling the border, and now

americans are going to size him up and how does he compare against his competitor, donald trump. >> former secretary mark esper, thanks for joining me. a closer look at the short and longer term implications of these strikes, a former top intelligence official will join us to help answer those questions. that's coming up.

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban

congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message. two leading candidates for senate. two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. as we've been discussing

tonight, one consistent theme stands out. namely the balance that president biden appears to be trying to strike as he delivers a message to iran without dropping bombs directly on iranian territory or targets. for more on how the iranians and others might respond to all this, we're joined now by beth sanders. she's a former deputy director of national intelligence. good to have you on, beth, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks, jim. >> to that question. and you know better than me in intelligence you can't answer these questions with absolute certainty, but the biden administration has to make a calculation, deter without escalating. and i wonder how intelligence -- his intelligence advisers might have been advising him tonight and in recent days as he came to the decision to launch these attacks. >> yeah. well, you know, deterrence isn't about one act or one day. it's about flipping the calculus of your adversary in the

cost-benefit ratio of what they've been getting out and what they've been doing as a benefit and making the cost of that seem higher, right, so they won't continue that. so it takes -- it takes steps. and so what an intelligence officer is briefing on is, you know, kind of what is the near-term likely response. how are they going to measure this act in terms of their cost-benefit ratio? and then, what's their ability to actually if they do feel if the deterrence value is raised, that that cost has been raised, then do they have the ability to impose that on their proxy forces? so you try to look at that whole scene. >> now, i imagine iranian intelligence officials are making their own calculations tonight probably were in recent days as to what forces to move from where and how quickly and what to leave behind, that kind of thing. what calculation are they making right now?

i imagine they have to be making their own assessments of how long and how extensive this campaign, if you want to call it that, or series of strikes will be. >> right. i think there are actually some signs that iran was concerned in the days following the attack on tower 22. you know, the head of the quds fo force,sol his successor went to baghdad and met with the hezbollah commander, and you almost can feel he was standing over the head of kh as he was writing his letter saying we're going to cease our attacks on americans now. i think they were worried, and my concern now is that did this get calibrated enough they're not thinking, whew, actually this wasn't as bad as we thought it was. and i am a little bit concerned about the amount we telegraphed in advance about how we're not

going to strike iran. i -- i don't think you should start at the top of an escalation ladder in order to restore deterrence like some are talking. you start at the bottom and work your way up until you hit the sweet spot or something close, but you don't want to take things off the table either because you're trying to change that mentality. >> should we prepare ourselves for two ongoing campaigns as it were? and this is beyond what's going on in gaza, but you have an ongoing campaign against the houthis trying to stop strikes on shipping in the red sea, and now it appears on iranian backed militias trying to stop attacks on u.s. service members in the region. >> yeah, well, you know, i think for a little while this is going to probably go on for, you know, days, maybe weeks. and i think our expectation, too, is it's -- when you talk about re-establishing deterrence, it might be hard to turn it off 100%, because there are a lot of these groups, small

groups, you know, there is -- there is the ability of iran to put the lid on this, but it may not be perfect especially in the beginning. the houthis, i think, are much, much harder to establish deterrence for. so because they are gaining from these attacks. >> yeah. certainly prominence and some sort on the arab street we were talking about earlier in the program. beth sanner, thanks so much for joining us. just ahead another major headline this evening. new developments in three of the four trials facing the former president.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card

with qualifying internet. important developments in three of the four trials facing former president trump if you're keeping track. first, the special counsel's classified documents case. in a new court filing jack smith's team fights back against what they say are false claims by the trump team about exactly how the case began. for instance, saying he did not have a security clearance after leaving the white house contrary to what trump has claimed. also today in the election subversion case trump advisers tell cnn he will continue to push for delays after a federal judge postponed the march 4th trial date because of ongoing appeals regarding trump's claim of wide presidential immunity. and the third one, in the georgia election interference

case. prosecutor fani willis admitted in a filing to having a personal relationship with a man she appointed to oversee the trial against the former president and 18 others. three of the defendants including trump are demanding the case now be dismissed because of that relationship. quoting willing, while the allegations raise asked the various motions are salacious and garnered the media attention they were designed to obtain, none provide this court upon any basis upon which to order relief they seek. here to talk about this senior legal analyst ellie honig. former federal prosecutor. good to have you. let's begin if we can on the documents case. his team says, smith's team says there's no evidence trump even had a security clearance after he left office despite the attorney's claim. what does that mean for this case? >> so, jim, trump's team had been making arguments about raising a defense he somehow main taped a high level security clearance after he left the

presidency, and jack smith's team today put in a very straightforward and forceful response. he said, "a," he did not have security clearance, we lookedb everywhere, and "b," if he did that doesn't let him take home documents. so i think smith's team has put that to bed. >> judge chuttion, this march date was not going to happen with this continued delay about this decision about immunity. so i wonder what do you believe is behind this, the delay at the appeals court level of answering this key question about whether the president had virtually unlimited immunity. what does it signal to you that it hasn't come as quickly as anybody expected? >> yeah, judge chutkan had to acknowledge what she did today at this trial is simply not going to start on march 4th because as you say this appeal issue on immunity has now been pending for nearly two months. it's taking longer for the d.c. circuit to rule than i think anyone expected. and what that tells me this is a three-judge panel is that

there's some disagreement within the panel. it may be we see a 2-1 split decision. we may still see a 3-0 decision, but the fact it's taking this long tells me they're having to work through some level of disagreement. i think trump's still going to lose this case, but it may not be as quickly and cleanly as we expected. >> very quickly on fani willis, should she recuse herself and step down after all this? >> absolutely. i think if she doesn't do it voluntarily, there's a good chance the judge forces her to do it. i read her response today. it doesn't in my mind answer the key questions not about the relationship. it doesn't matter to me if they're having a romantic relationship or just some other relationship but about the flow of money, the conflict of interest, and i believe the wildly improper statement she's made publicly that are going to prejudice the jury pool here. i think she should step aside, and if she doesn't i think there's a good chance the judge forces it. >> we'll be watching all three of those. elie honing, thanks so much. >> all right, jeff, thanks.

>>, and we'll be right back.

cnn's coverage continues. i'm jim sciutto. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. i'm ka